mark lott phd

• (720) 615-8444
• [email protected]
• Loveland, Colorado

Our Practice

Neuropsychological Solutions, PLLC provides evidence-based and solution-focused consultation and assessment services aimed at assisting individuals to live better and fuller lives. As highly skilled specialists, we understand the complexities of brain-based medical conditions and their impact on individuals and families.  We take a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to assessment and treatment planning by working collaboratively with the individual, their family, and their community (including doctors, therapists, education specialists, and employment professionals) to optimize treatment outcomes and improve quality of life. We value honest and compassionate care; clinical innovation based in strong science; and services that are efficient, cost-effective, and accessible.    

Clinical Specialties

We evaluate individuals (ages 3-30) with conditions that impact the brain, including: 

Acquired brain injuries

Seizure disorders

Brain tumors & other cancers

Prematurity & low birth weight

Demyelinating disorders

Sickle cell & other hematologic disorders

Organ failure & transplant 

Neuromuscular disorders

Neurodevelopmental disorders (including ADHD & learning issues)

Movement disorders

Vascular disease & stroke

Cost of an Evaluation & Payment

We are “in-network” with Cigna (Evernorth Health Services) , United Health Care (Optum Behavioral Health) , and Health First Colorado (Colorado Medicaid ) .    

We are “ out-of-network” with all other insurance plans.  We encourage you to consult with your health insurance provider prior to the time of service to determine if an evaluation will be covered.    Upon re quest, an itemized receipt (a superbill) will be provided to you to request reimbursement from your insurance provider.   We accept payment by credit card, including HSA and FSA.  The cost of an evaluation depends on the complexity of your case, though most evaluations range from $1,500- $3,500.  We will provide you with an initial Good Faith Estimate* when you schedule your first appointment, then provide an updated and  more detailed Good Faith Estimate at the end of your intake appointment.   IQ testing only (i.e., for gifted placement) is a flat rate of $6 00. 

*The No Surprise Act (NSA) & Your Right to Receive a “Good Faith Estimate” .    Under the law, patients have a right to receive a Good Faith Estimate for the total expected cost of their care at least 1 day prior to receiving any service.  If you receive a bill that is $400 more than your Good Faith Estimate, you may dispute the bill.  For questions or more information about your right to receive a Good Faith Estimate, please visit  www.cms.gov/nosurprises .

About our providers.

Mark Lott, PhD

Pediatric neuropsychologist / owner.

As a pediatric specialist, I value evidence-based care and have a breadth of training and experience in clinical neuropsychology.  I earned a doctoral degree in clinical psychology from Brigham Young University and completed a one-year pre-doctoral internship at Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine.  I then completed a two-year post-doctoral fellowship in clinical neuropsychology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center with major rotations in pediatric cancer & blood disorders, neurorehabilitation, and general outpatient services.  

Before moving to the northern Colorado area and opening a private practice  in July 2021 , I served as a pediatric neuropsychologist at Children’s Health and an assistant professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, where I specialized in evaluating patients with acquired brain injuries (e.g., traumatic brain injury, stroke, encephalitis, etc.) and other neurologic conditions.   While there, I worked closely with physicians and therapists to improve inpatient and outpatient brain injury rehabilitation programs and came to value a team-based, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment planning and patient care.   Because I continue to believe strong teams lead to the best outcomes,  I work closely with other providers along the Colorado Front Range to ensure you receive the highest quality of care.  

In addition to my work at Neuropsychological Solutions,  I also work as a pediatric neuropsychologist through the Stress, Trauma, Adversity Research, and Treatment (START) Center at the University of Colorado Anchutz Medical Campus and am serving as treasurer elect for the Colorado Neuropsychological Society (CNS).  I have a special clinical interest in cognitive rehabilitation and my research focuses on evaluating the impact of everyday lifestyle factors (e.g., physical activity, sleep, diet) on the neurocognitive development of children and adolescents.  I am involved in various professional organizations and have actively participated in the education and clinical supervision of graduate students, residents, and fellows.

Schedule an Appointment

For Referring Providers: To refer a patient, please download the referral form and fax it to (720) 844-3300. If you have questions about a referral, or are wondering if Neuropsychological Solutions is the best fit for you and your patients, please call us at (720) 615-8444.

For Patients and Families : If you are currently working with a doctor, please have them complete the referral form and send relevant medical records. If you are referring yourself or a family member, please call our office at (720) 615-8444. 

Find a Provider Near You

Learn more about a specialty

Check to see if your insurance plan is accepted by CU Medicine Clinics.

• Find a Location
• Find a Provider
• Specialties & Services
• Patient Resources
• COVID-19 Policies
• Request Records
• First Visit Info
• Common Clinical Fees
• Billing Inquiries
• Health Insights

Find A Provider

Practice locations, cu medicine psychiatry - stress, trauma, adversity research, and treatment (start), anschutz health sciences building.

303-724-1669

Mark Lott, PhD

• Neuropsychology

Primary Clinic Phone

Referring Provider Info

Provider Expertise

Specialties, education & training, graduate schools.

PhD, Brigham Young University (2015)

Internships

Texas Children's Hospital (2014)

Fellowships

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Program (2017)

information for referring providers

Referral contact phone, referral contact fax.

303-724-8859

Clinical Interests for Referring Providers

Clinical Neuropsychology

Want Health Insights In Your Inbox?

Subscribe to our Health Insights to receive the latest health news and information in your inbox.

Mark Lott, PhD Assistant Clinical Professor, Psychiatry

• PhD, Brigham Young University (2015)
• Texas Children's Hospital (2014)
• Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Program, Neuropsychology (2017)

Professional Titles

• Pediatric Neuropsychologist

Practice Locations

Specialty information.

• Neuropsychology

General Information

Profile link copied to clipboard.

The link to your profile has been copied to your clipboard.

SOM Resources

• School of Medicine
• Departments
• Colorado Profiles

CU Resources

• AMC Library
• CU Medicine

Dr. Mark Lott, PHD

Neuropsychology • Male

Neuropsychology

Dr. Mark Lott, PHD is a neuropsychologist in Aurora, CO. He is accepting telehealth appointments.

CU Medicine Psychiatry - Stress, Trauma, Adversity Research, and Treatment (START)

Make an Appointment

At a Glance

• Offers Telehealth This provider offers telehealth appointments. Call the office to schedule an appointment.

BetterHelp is an online service created to help you with your mental health. Sign up and find support from a licensed therapist.

Enjoy 20% off your first month with code "Healthgrades"

Experience and Background Checks

Search for experience in a specific area, background check.

*The information displayed here is sourced from independent information providers, such as state board websites, as of November 2023, and may not be the most up-to-date information. Healthgrades makes no representations with respect to the accuracy of any information provided here and assumes no responsibility or liability for such information.

Insurance Check

Search for your insurance carrier and choose your plan type, dr. lott's reviews, overall patient satisfaction, compare providers.

Providers shown based on Dr. Lott's location and specialty. Show more Neuropsychologists.

Dr. Andrew Schechterman, PHD

Dr. Meghan T Lee, PHD

Dr. Helena Huckabee, PHD

Dr. Tara Kane, PHD

Dr. Thomas Wodushek, PHD

Dr. Michael Kerrigan, PHD

• Invert Color

• Referral Form
• Adult Classes and Workshops
• Brain Injury Support Groups
• Resource Navigation
• Educational Materials
• Self-management / Skill Building
• Peer Mentorship Program
• Recreation Programs
• Online Provider Directory
• Participate in Research Studies
• BIAC Preferred Attorneys Directory
• 2025 Brain Injury Symposium
• CDC’s Concussion Info
• Education Consultation
• Support Groups
• Youth Classes and Workshops
• CO Department of Education
• Educational Materials for Teachers & Parents
• Concussion Management
• The Legal System and Brain Injury
• Resource Directory
• Brain Injury Professional Networking (BIPN)
• Certified Brain Injury Specialist
• Clinical Therapy Services
• Statewide Crisis Services
• Pikes Peak Challenge
• Donate Your Car
• Planned Giving
• Workplace Giving
• Reinhardt/Bruno Golf Tournament
• Cathleen’s Cause Golf Tournament
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility & Justice
• Annual Report
• National Partners

Neuropsychological Solutions, PLLC

• Save for later

Neuropsychological Solutions, PLLC provides evidence-based and solution-focused consultation and assessment services aimed at assisting children, adolescents, and young adults to live better and fuller lives. As highly skilled specialists, we understand the complexities of brain-based medical conditions and their impact on individuals and families. We take a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to assessment and treatment planning by working collaboratively with the individual, their family, and their community (including doctors, therapists, education specialists, and employment professionals) to optimize treatment outcomes and improve quality of life. We value honest and compassionate care; clinical innovation based in strong science; and services that are efficient, cost-effective, and accessible. Currently accepting pediatric patients (ages 3 - 30). For more information, please contact Dr. Lott at (720) 615 - 8444 with questions.

View Saved Entries

See Our Directory Partners

Common Categories

Alphabetical.

View directory listings by first letter.

Add a Resource Directory Entry

Website Design by Harmony Design

Citations per year

Duplicate citations, merged citations, add co-authors co-authors.

Condition Headquarters:

• Find a Doctor
• Neuropsychologists

Dr. Mark Lott, PHD

Offers telehealth

Dr. Mark Lott, PHD is a Neuropsychologist in Aurora, CO. They currently practice at CU Medicine Psychiatry - Stress, Trauma, Adversity Research, and Treatment (START). Their office is not accepting new patients. Dr. Lott accepts multiple insurance plans.

This provider offers telehealth appointments. Call the office to schedule.

Insurance Accepted

APCN Plus - Colorado Front Range - Choice PO Choice Plus POS II Elect Choice (Open Access) EPO Managed Choice (Open Access) POS Open Choice PPO Premier Care Network Plus - Innovation Health Whole Health Colorado Front Range

BestChoice PPO Blue Essentials HMO

Blue Card PPO

First Health (Coventry Health Care) PPO

Patient Satisfaction

Be the first to leave a review.

How likely are you to recommend Dr. Lott?

• Tell us about your experience with Dr. Lott

Dr. Lott's Office & Staff

• Under 10 minutes
• 10 – 15 minutes
• 16 – 30 minutes
• 31 – 45 minutes
• Over 45 minutes

Experience with Dr. Lott

Tell us about yourself.

• Display Name
• City, State:

Finish Here

• Email Address:
• Phone Number:

• *Sharecare does not verify qualifications for medical specialties. Please verify your provider's specialty and qualifications directly with your provider and applicable medical board.

Frequently Asked Questions

Find contact information here to make an appointment.

A list of accepted insurance providers is available on the Sharecare insurance check . It is always a good idea to verify your insurance when making an appointment.

New patients are generally accepted by Dr. Mark Lott, PHD. To arrange an appointment, call the number on Dr. Lott's profile .

Dr. Lott in specializes in Neuropsychology. See more on Sharecare .

Dr. Lott's office is located at 1890 N Revere Ct Ste 4095STE Aurora, CO 80045. You can find other locations and directions on Sharecare .

Dr. Lott provides telehealth services . Please contact the office to determine whether you are eligible.

Introduction

As a pediatric specialist, I value evidence-based care and have a breadth of training and experience in clinical neuropsychology. I earned a doctoral degree in clinical psychology from Brigham Young University and completed a one-year pre-doctoral internship at Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine. I then completed a two-year post-doctoral fellowship in clinical neuropsychology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center with major rotations in pediatric cancer & blood disorders, neurorehabilitation, and general outpatient services. More recently, I served as a pediatric neuropsychologist at Children’s Health and an assistant professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, where I specialized in evaluating patients with acquired brain injuries (e.g., traumatic brain injury, stroke, encephalitis, etc.) and other neurologic conditions. While there, I worked closely with physicians and therapists to improve inpatient and outpatient brain injury rehabilitation programs and have come to value a team-based, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment planning and patient care. In addition to my clinical work, I have a special clinical interest in cognitive rehabilitation and my research focuses on evaluating the impact of everyday lifestyle factors (e.g., physical activity, sleep, diet) on the neurocognitive development of children and adolescents. I am involved in various professional organizations and have actively participated in the education and clinical supervision of graduate students, residents, and fellows.

• In-person & telehealth appointments
• Accepts online payments and insurance
• Ph. D. #PSY.0005495 (CO)

Specialties

• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Pediatric Psychology
• Cognitive Rehabilitation

Population focus

Appointment types.

• Individuals
• Toddlers (under 6)
• Children (6-12)
• Teenagers (12-18)
• Young Adults (18-24)
• Adults (24+)

Payment options

Pay with insurance.

• Health First Colorado (Medicaid)
• Private Pay

Pay out-of-pocket

• Neuropsychological Evaluation $1200 - $3500
• Cognitive Screening $1000 - $1500
• Intelligence Testing $600
• Academic Testing $500 - $1500

Frequently asked questions

Get inspiration straight to your inbox..

By clicking "Get the newsletter", I agree to Monarch Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive emails from Monarch. I know I may unsubscribe any time.

Monarch does not employ any provider and is not responsible for the conduct of any provider listed on our site. All information in member profiles, and messages are created from data provided by the providers and not generated or verified by Monarch. As a user, you need to perform your own diligence to ensure the provider you choose is appropriate for your needs and complies with applicable laws and licensure requirements. Monarch is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.

Monarch assumes no responsibility, and shall not be liable, for the quality or any other aspect of the services a provider may provide to you, nor will Monarch be liable for any act, omission or wrongdoing committed or allegedly committed by any provider.

Articles and information and assessments posted on Monarch are for informational purposes only, and it is not intended to diagnose or treat any health conditions. Treatment and diagnosis should be performed by an appropriate health care provider.

IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, DO NOT USE MONARCH. IF YOU ARE EXPERIENCING A MEDICAL EMERGENCY, OR THINKING ABOUT SUICIDE OR HARMING YOURSELF OR OTHERS, CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY OR ANOTHER APPLICABLE EMERGENCY NUMBER.

© 2023 SimplePractice, LLC

• Psychologists

Dr. Mark Anthon Lott

Ph.d. | clinical psychologist.

• Psychology Clinics
• Neurologists
• Neurology Clinics
• Psychiatrists
• Psychiatry Clinics

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Virtual Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why publish with this journal?
• About Journal of Pediatric Psychology
• About the Society of Pediatric Psychology
• Editorial Board
• Student Resources
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction.

• < Previous

Associations Between Parent–Child Communication and Connectedness, Parent Feeding Behavior, and Child Body Mass in Pre-Adolescent Children

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Kristina D Lowe, Mark A Lott, Chad D Jensen, Associations Between Parent–Child Communication and Connectedness, Parent Feeding Behavior, and Child Body Mass in Pre-Adolescent Children, Journal of Pediatric Psychology , Volume 46, Issue 1, January-February 2021, Pages 59–68, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsaa087

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This study evaluated associations between parent–child connectedness and communication, parent feeding behaviors (restriction, pressure to eat, and monitoring), and age- and sex-standardized child body mass index (zBMI) in a sample of pre-adolescent children aged 8–12 years.

A community sample of three hundred and eight child–parent dyads completed measures of communication and connectedness. Parents completed a feeding behavior measure and children were weighed and their height was measured. We examined whether parental feeding behaviors and parent–child communication and connectedness predicted child zBMI and whether parental feeding behaviors moderated the association between parent–child communication and connectedness and child zBMI.

Feeding restriction was positively associated with zBMI, while both pressure to eat and food monitoring exhibited negative associations with zBMI. Child-reported communication was inversely associated with zBMI and parental pressure to eat moderated this association such that lower pressure to eat predicted a stronger association between communication and zBMI.

These findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that parent feeding strategies and parent–child communication are important contributors to child weight status. This study also provides preliminary evidence suggesting that adaptive parent–child communication is associated with lower body mass when parents avoid pressuring their child to eat. Our study provides an important extension of this body of research into middle childhood, a relatively understudied developmental stage.

Research examining factors that contribute to weight status in children has proliferated over the past decade. An extensive literature suggests that parents’ influence on food availability, the structure of meals, and the modeling of eating habits impact a child’s development of lifelong dietary habits and may contribute to child weight ( Koplan et al., 2004 ; Ventura & Birch, 2008 ). However, studies examining associations between parent feeding practices and children’s eating behavior and weight status have yielded mixed results. While some studies have found no significant associations between parents’ feeding behaviors and child BMI ( Gregory et al., 2010 ), most studies identify parent feeding practices as an important contributor to child weight status ( Faith et al., 2004 ). Specifically, high levels of parental control over eating have been linked to higher body mass in children, while encouraging children to eat healthy foods and monitoring child food intake is associated with lower weight status ( Zhang & McIntosh, 2011 ). A closer look at findings in this area of research suggests an even more nuanced relationship between parent feeding practices and child weight. For example, while Rodgers et al. (2013) found high levels of caregiver restriction, pressure to eat, and monitoring to predict maladaptive weight outcomes in children, Steele et al. (2014) found moderate levels of restriction, pressure to eat, and monitoring predicted the best outcomes in a pediatric weight control intervention.

Parent–child relationship variables have also been shown to have important implications for child weight status and parent feeding practices. Pre-adolescent youth are acquiring important developmental skills, including increased autonomy and realigning their relationships with parents to adjust for increased independence ( Hauser Kunz & Grych, 2013 ; Holmbeck, 2018 ). However, parent–child communication and connectedness remain important for child socio-emotional development during this developmental stage ( Finkenauer et al., 2002 ; Keijsers et al., 2010 ; Keijsers & Poulin, 2013 ). While pre-adolescent youth are spending more time outside of the home and with peers ( Larson et al., 1996 ; Steinberg & Morris, 2001 ), research suggests that they are more open to parental influence than their older peers ( Darling et al., 2008 ) and that most of a pre-adolescent’s eating is under parental supervision (from ages 10 to 14 years old; Miller et al., 2012 ). As such, parental involvement in both the parent–child relationship and the child’s eating behavior at this age suggests that this relationship may be an important correlate of child weight outcomes.

A meta-analysis examining the parent–child relationship during childhood suggested that this relationship may have important implications for child weight and parent feeding practices; however, most studies show small effect sizes ( Francis et al. 2001 ; Pinquart, 2014 ). Still, parent–child connectedness (the extent to which a child feels loved, cared for, and close to their parents; Boutelle et al., 2009 ) has been shown to be associated with child eating and weight. A few studies have shown that low child-reported connectedness with their mother is associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors and attitudes ( Ackard et al., 2006 ; Goossens et al., 2012 ). Most studies examining the parent–child relationship and effects of this construct on parental feeding behavior and child weight are either in younger children or adolescents, which leaves much about these associations during pre-adolescence unknown.

Parent–child communication, defined as the extent to which parents perceive that they listen to their child and the extent to which the child perceives that their parent listens to them, may also be an important part of promoting optimal parental feeding behaviors and child weight outcomes. This may be especially salient in pre-adolescents, as they have not yet begun to separate from parents by limiting their communication about personal issues ( Keijsers & Poulin, 2013 ). Lanigan (2012) found that family communication accounted for 29% of the variance in parent feeding efficacy and knowledge. The amount and quality of communication also appears to play a role. For example, Parletta et al. (2012) found that incendiary, negative parent–child communication predicted higher child BMI in youth 2–12 years old, while positive parent–child communication has been shown to contribute to healthy behavioral and social outcomes through their ability to effectively co-manage activities and routines ( Giallo & Gavidia-Payne, 2006 ). Another study suggested that lower levels of parent–child communication were associated with higher levels of parental dietary control in 12–19 year olds ( Keijsers & Poulin, 2013 ). Overall, findings suggest parent communication may have important implications for parent feeding practices and child weight outcomes, especially given that high levels of parental dietary control are predictive of maladaptive weight outcomes ( Rodgers et al., 2013 ).

Taken together, parent–child relationship variables appear to play a significant role in both parental feeding practices and child weight status. However, the direction and degree of these specific associations have not yet been examined. If parent–child relationship variables are associated with parent feeding practices and child weight outcomes in pre-adolescents, these findings would provide preliminary evidence that interventions aimed at enhancing the quality of the parent–child relationship may be helpful in promoting healthy child weight outcomes.

Therefore, this study aimed to assess the associations between parent–child communication and connectedness, parental feeding practices, and child body mass. We hypothesized that (a) parent–child connectedness and parent–child communication would be inversely associated with age- and sex-standardized body mass index (zBMI), (b) parent feeding practices would moderate the association between parent–child connectedness and child zBMI such that this association would be more stronger at lower levels of restriction, pressure to eat, monitoring, and (c) parent feeding practices would moderate the association between parent–child communication and child zBMI such that this association would be more stronger at lower levels of restriction, pressure to eat, monitoring.

Participants

Three hundred and eight child–parent dyads were recruited from five elementary schools within a western public-school district. Inclusion criteria required that (a) the child was between the ages of 8–12 years old, (b) the child had no serious health-related concerns that would preclude participation in physically rigorous activity, (c) one parent/guardian participated in the study and provided consent, (d) the child provided written assent, and (e) the parent/guardian and child spoke English (see Table I for demographic and anthropometric data). Parent/child dyads were recruited as a part of larger study through a brief announcement and a flyer provided to children during physical education classes. Only those parent–child dyads who signed and returned consent/assents form were enrolled in the study. The number of parents and children who passively declined or did not return a consent form is unknown. Of the children whose parents provided informed consent, 14 children declined to participate. Children at participating schools received a visit from a local university mascot and parents/guardians received modest monetary compensation (i.e., $5.00 Amazon gift card) for participating.

Summary of Demographic and Anthropometric Data

Note . Monthly gross income was measured in $1,000 increments. BMI data were not collected for two participants. BMI = body mass index; zBMI = age- and sex-standardized body mass index.

Weight Status

zBMI has been shown to be a moderately reliable indicator of body fat percentage in children and adolescents ( Mei et al., 2002 ) and risk for numerous health-impairing conditions ( Daniels, 2009 ; Ingelsson et al., 2007 ). Because zBMI is an accurate estimate of body fat percentage in children when measuring at a single time point ( Cole et al., 2005 ), zBMI for age and sex was used as child weight status in this study. To calculate zBMI, participant’s weight (measured to the 10th of a pound) and height (measured to the 8th of the inch) were measured by research assistants, who were trained for assessment accuracy by the principal investigator using a digital scale (Seca 869) and a portable stadiometer (Seca 217). Participants were assessed in light clothing and with no shoes. Measured height, weight, age, and sex were then used to derive zBMI using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s SAS Program and the 2000 CDC growth charts for children and teens ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010 ).

Parent–Child Communication

Forehand et al. (1997) adapted Barnes and Olson’s (1985) Communication Scale for children and their parents. The Communication Scale—Revised consists of 10 child-response questions and 10 parent-response questions, which are scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale and summed to form one composite score. The child-response questions assess the degree to which the child perceives their parent listens to them (e.g., “My parents and I can talk about almost anything”), while the parent-response questions assess the degree to which parents listen to their child (e.g., “I sometimes don’t listen to my child”). In the original validation of this measure, parent and child reports correlated significantly ( r = .39, p < .01) with an alpha coefficient of .85. This scale has demonstrated construct validity in various adolescent populations ( Xia et al., 2004 ). For the current study, the correlation between parent and child responses on this measure was r = .13, p < .05 and the internal consistency was α = .68 for parent report and α = .64 for child report.

Parent–Child Connectedness

The parent–child connectedness measure ( Boutelle et al., 2009 ) consists of four statements rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale which assess the degree to which children feel connected to their father and mother (e.g., “How much do you feel that your mother cares about you?”; “How much do you feel you can talk to your father about your problems?”). A total score comprising the mean of the four items represents aggregate parent–child connectedness, with higher scores indicating greater connection to parents. Cronbach's α in the initial validation study was .69 and internal consistency in the present study was α = .66. Although this measure has been used in similar studies and is high in face validity, evidence for other types of validity is limited.

Child Feeding Questionnaire

The child feeding questionnaire is a well-validated measure that consists of 31 items that load onto seven factors ( Birch et al., 2001 ; Camci et al., 2014 ). Only three scales from the child feeding questionnaire were used in this study (restriction, pressure to eat, and monitoring). The restriction scale measures the extent to which parents restrict their child’s access to foods (i.e., “I intentionally keep some foods out of my child’s reach”). The monitoring scale measures the extent to which parents oversee their child’s eating (i.e., “How much do you keep track of the high-fat foods that your child eats?”). The pressure to eat scale assesses the parent’s tendency to pressure their child to eat more food (i.e., “My child should always eat all the food on her plate”). Each scale is measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale with higher ratings indicating more parental use of restriction, pressure, or monitoring. Internal consistency for subscales ranged from acceptable to excellent in the validation study (restriction α = .73, monitoring α = .92, and pressure to eat α = .70) and in the current sample (restriction α = .87, monitoring α = .94, and pressure to eat α = .79).

The Brigham Young University Institutional Review Board, School District, and principals from participating elementary school approved the study procedures. A parent or legal guardian provided consent and completed all study questionnaires through an online survey. After parents had completed the online survey, height and weight were measured and children completed questionnaires during a physical education class.

Statistical Analysis

Study variables were inspected for normality and missing values prior to analyses. Missingness was below 1.6% for all primary study variables so missingness was addressed using listwise deletion. Hierarchical regression analyses using SPSS (version 26) were used to evaluate the relationship between parent–child relationship factors, parent feeding practices, and child zBMI. All predictor variables were standardized for ease of interpretation, and alpha was set at 0.05 for all significance tests.

Each parent–child relationship variable (i.e., parent-reported communication, child-reported communication, and parent–child connectedness) was evaluated in a separate set of hierarchical analyses (see Tables II–IV ). In the first step of each analyses, parent feeding variables (restriction, pressure to eat, and monitoring) were included in the model because of their well-established association with zBMI. During the second step, a single parent–child relationship factor was added to the model to assess for improvements in the prediction of zBMI (as assessed by changes in R 2 ). Finally, at each of the subsequent three steps, an interaction term between the pertinent parent–child relationship factor and a parent feeding practice was added to assess for moderation effects and improvements in amount of variance accounted for by the model. When moderation effects were found, the interaction was further evaluated using ordinary least squares regression through the PROCESS macro (version 3.4) in SPSS ( Hayes, 2013 ). As a part of this analysis, variables were mean-centered to reduce the adverse impact of multicollinearity and to facilitate interpretation. As a part of this approach, levels of interaction were evaluated at 1 SD above the mean, at the mean, and at 1 SD below the mean. A range of significance for the moderation effect was then calculated using the Johnson–Neyman method ( Miller et al., 2013 ).

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Child zBMI from Parent Feeding Practices, Communication (Parent Report), and Interaction Terms

Note. zBMI = age- and sex-standardized body mass index.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Child zBMI from Parent Feeding Practices, Communication (Child Report), and Interaction Terms

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Child zBMI from Parent Feeding Practices, Connectedness, and Interaction Terms

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Consistent with past research, all hierarchical regression models showed stable small to moderate associations between parent feeding practices (restriction, pressure to eat, and monitoring) and child zBMI. Specifically, restriction was moderately associated with zBMI ( p ≤ .001), such that more restriction was related to higher child zBMI. In contrast, pressure to eat and monitoring consistently showed small negative associations with zBMI ( p < .05), such that lower pressure to eat and lower monitoring were related to higher child zBMI. See Tables II–V for standardized coefficient estimates across each model.

Results From the Ordinary Least Squares Regression Analysis Predicting Child zBMI from Child-Reported Parent–Child Communication, Parent Feeding Practices, and a Communication-Pressure to Eat Interaction

Note. All variables were standardized and centered prior to analysis; R 2 change is based on including the interaction effect between parent–child communication and pressure to eat. zBMI = age- and sex-standardized body mass index.

Results varied when adding individual parent–child relationship factors to the model. Only child-reported communication showed a significant negative association with child zBMI ( β = −0.12; p = .03) with improvements in the amount of variance accounted for by the model ( R 2 = 0.11; Δ R 2 = 0.014, p = .03). However, this association became non-significant ( p = .06) with the addition of an interaction between communication (per child report) and pressure to eat, suggesting a moderation effect ( β = −0.14; p = .02). Importantly, the addition of this interaction between child-reported communication and pressure to eat improved the amount of variance explained by the model ( R 2 = 0.13, p < .001; Δ R 2 = 0.015, p = .02). In contrast, neither parent–child communication (per parent report) nor parent–child connectedness showed any association with child zBMI; nor did any associated interaction terms show an association.

Moderation Analysis

To further assess the interaction between parent–child communication (per child report) and pressure to eat, all significant predictors were evaluated in a single model (i.e., all parent feeding practices, child-reported communication, and the communication-pressure to eat interaction) while removing all non-significant interaction terms. Results from Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS output are shown in Table V . Results from this analysis again showed a small, but significant moderation effect between child-reported communication and pressure to eat on child zBMI ( β  = 0.12; p = .04) with improvements in the variance accounted for by the model ( R 2 = 0.13, p < .001; Δ R 2 = 0.012, p = .04) when including this interaction term. A closer look at the results, by assessing this interaction at different levels of pressure to eat (at 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, and 1 SD above the mean) and Johnson–Neyman significance regions, showed that the interaction between child-reported communication and pressure to eat on child zBMI only remained significant at lower levels of pressure to eat ( z -score ≤ −0.07). As shown in Figure 1 , parent–child communication (per child report) was predictive of child zBMI only when scores on the pressure to eat scale fell below the mean in our sample. In other words, parent–child communication was related to child zBMI only under the condition of lower pressure to eat by parent. Importantly, this moderation effect increased and remained significant as pressure to eat declined below the mean ( β = −0.11, −0.37).

Interaction between parent–child communication and pressure to eat predicting zBMI.

Note. NS = not significant; PTE = pressure to eat; zBMI = age- and sex-standardized body mass index. Low = 1 SD below the mean, Average = mean, and High = 1 SD above the mean; All variables were standardized ( z -score) and mean centered to facilitate interpretation and avoid multicollinearity; ** p ≤ .01.

This study examined direct and indirect associations between parent–child connectedness and communication, parent feeding practices, and child zBMI.

Regarding our initial hypothesis, that parent–child communication and connectedness would be inversely associated with zBMI, we found that only child-reported communication was inversely associated with zBMI. This result is consistent with previous research suggesting that child ratings of parent–child communication have been associated with eating habits and weight outcomes and the small effect sizes we noted are consistent with previous research ( Ackard et al., 2006 ; Parletta et al., 2012 ). This finding provides additional evidence for the importance of parent–child communication as a predictor of child body mass in pre-adolescent children. However, it is somewhat surprising that we found no association between parent-reported communication and zBMI given that parent-reported relationship quality has often been shown to be associated with eating and weight outcomes ( Ackard et al., 2006 ). Previous findings have indicated that parent’s perceptions of communication can influence their child feeding practices ( Payne et al., 2011 ) and that poorer parent–child communication, as perceived by both the parent and child, predicts higher BMI when examined in populations where the majority of participants are overweight or obese ( Parletta et al., 2012 ). Because our study was conducted with a community sample with a wide range of zBMI, it is possible that our null finding in this regard is attributable to study sample differences.

Relatedly, our hypothesis that parent–child connectedness would be associated with zBMI was not supported. It is possible that study sample differences influenced our null findings regarding associations between parent–child connectedness and child weight. Our sample was younger than Ackard et al.’s (2006) , who found an association between lower parent–child connectedness and higher risk of unhealthy weight control strategies. It is also possible that this association may be more salient in adolescents, who are in greater control of their own eating and weight outcomes relative to pre-adolescents who are still under their parents influence for most of their eating ( Miller et al., 2012 ).

When examining the influence of feeding practices on zBMI, our findings were mixed restriction demonstrated a positive, moderately sized association with zBMI. Food restriction has been well-documented as a maladaptive feeding practice because children whose food access is restricted tend to demonstrate dysregulation toward foods when they do have access ( Birch et al., 2003 ; Farrow et al., 2015 ; Ogden et al., 2013 ), which in turn contributes to higher child weight. However, it is important to note that some research has shown that parents may alter their feeding strategies based on their perceptions of their child’s weight ( Payne et al., 2011 ), and thus may use higher levels of restriction if they perceive their child as overweight. Conversely, parental pressure to eat and food monitoring were negatively associated with child zBMI, although these effects were relatively small. These findings suggest that, at lower levels of parental pressure to eat and monitoring, children are more likely to have higher zBMI. Both findings are somewhat counterintuitive and contradict other studies that show no relationship or a small positive association with higher zBMI. However, this finding is consistent with previous research by Brown and Perrin (2020) , who found an inverse association between parental pressure to eat and child weight. One potential explanation for these equivocal findings is that both high and low pressure to eat and monitoring may be maladaptive. Steele, Jensen, Gayes, & Liebold's (2014) research found that moderate use of restriction, pressure, and monitoring were associated with superior outcomes in a weight loss trial, suggesting that there is likely a healthy middle ground for use of these strategies.

Taken together, our findings are congruent with previous research indicating an association between parental feeding practices and child weight outcomes and the magnitude of our small to moderate effects was commensurate with previous research on this topic, although the direction of main effects in our study differed from the majority of previous research for both pressure to eat and monitoring ( Faith et al., 2004 ). In addition, our findings suggest that parental feeding practices are an important contributor to child weight in pre-adolescents, who are more directly under the influence of their parents than adolescents but are developing greater eating autonomy relative to children. One possible explanation for mixed findings regarding the effects of parent feeding on child weight is the developmental stage, especially given that studies in young children found feeding practices to be associated with maternal concern about child weight but not child body mass ( Gregory et al., 2010 ).

Analysis of our second hypothesis, examining whether parental feeding practices moderated the association between parent–child connectedness, yielded no significant findings. This is unsurprising given the lack of direct association between parent–child connectedness and child weight. However, this null finding diverges from previous studies indicating that the parent–child relationship as an important predictor of child eating and weight in younger children ( Ackard et al., 2006 ; Goossens et al., 2012 ). It is possible that this association differs by age, but it also could be a byproduct of our sample and as such should continue to be examined.

Finally, examining our third hypothesis revealed that child-reported parent–child communication was inversely associated with child zBMI only when parental pressure to eat was low. This result implies that only when parents minimize the pressure they exert on their child to eat (e.g., “clean your plate,” encouraging eating beyond satiety) does communication emerge as a predictor of child zBMI. This finding may imply that high parental pressure to eat negates the beneficial effects of positive communication on child eating behaviors and weight. Conversely, our findings may suggest that children who perceive lower parent–child communication who also have parents who minimally pressure them to eat healthy foods are more likely to have a higher zBMI. It is also possible that parents who communicate with their children effectively feel less need to control their child’s eating through pressure to eat and this, in turn, contributes to healthier zBMI. Improving parent–child communication, with particular focus on the child’s perspective, may be helpful in indirectly promoting weight-related health. Several child obesity interventions designed to strengthen parenting skills have been developed and these programs provide helpful models for how general- and feeding-specific parent–child communication could be addressed in family-oriented interventions ( Boutelle et al., 2017 ; Ek et al., 2019 ). Specifically, our findings may be helpful in improving the efficacy of multi-dimensional intervention approaches, which include family teamwork and collaboration as central intervention components ( Coppock et al., 2014 ). Our findings provide helpful insights for clinicians and families working to manage child weight. Specifically, encouraging positive communication, with emphasis on parent–child communication quality, as well as encouraging parents to reduce use of maladaptive feeding strategies may improve treatment outcomes ( Henry et al., 2018 ). Our finding that too little pressure from parents to eat healthy foods is not optimal for youth is also consistent with the American Heart Association guidelines that suggest families engage in feedings practices that increase consumption of healthy foods ( Gidding et al., 2006 ). Furthermore, our findings may be especially helpful in designing treatments for pre-adolescents given that parent–child communication is rapidly changing in this important developmental stage.

Several study limitations deserve discussion. Although the internal consistency reliability for the parent–child connectedness and communication measures were considered “acceptable” ( Spector, 1992 ), these reliability estimates (particularly for the communication scale) underperformed estimates obtained from the study developers and validation studies have not been conducted with these measures. Inconsistencies in coefficient alphas may exist because our study sample was younger than the validation samples. Other well-validated measures of the parent–child relationship variables we aimed to measure have not been developed, precluding selection of measures with better psychometric properties. It is possible that these findings may differ by ethnicity, age, or weight classification (i.e., underweight, overweight), but our study was unable to detect such effects due to its fairly homogenous ethnic sample (predominantly Caucasian = 81.65%), restricted age range, and predominantly healthy BMI. Results were derived from a sample of convenience in which both parents and children self-selected whether to participate or not. Because children and parents were informed that an aerobic fitness test was included in the study procedure, children with overweigh/obesity or their parents may have been less likely to agree to participate in the study. This may be the reason for the lower number of children number of children with overweight/obesity in our study (16.9%) compared to national averages (33.6%; Ogden et al., 2016 ). Finally, our cross-sectional study design does not allow for causal or directional inference and other parent variables may influence parent feeding behaviors and child weight (e.g., parent’s perceptions of their child’s weight; Ek et al., 2016 ; Gregory et al., 2010 ).

In conclusion, this study provides evidence that parent–child communication (assessed via child-report) is inversely associated with child zBMI and that this association is moderated by parent pressure to eat such that the association between communication and zBMI is only significant for children whose parents who engage in lower pressure to eat. These findings imply that improving parent–child communication may have salutary effects on child BMI and that intervening to lower parental pressure on their child to eat may be important in maximizing the benefit of improved parent–child communication. Overall, our findings are consistent with previous literature suggesting that feeding practices (i.e., restriction, monitoring) are associated with weight outcomes, and thus an important area for continued study and intervention. Furthermore, our study extends this area of research to pre-adolescent children, a relatively understudied developmental group in the existing literature.

Conflicts of interest : None declared.

Ackard D. , Neumark-Sztainer D. , Story M. , Perry C. ( 2006 ). Parent-child connectedness and behavioral and emotional health among adolescents . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 30 ( 1 ), 59 – 66 .

Google Scholar

Barnes H. , Olson D. ( 1985 ). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model . Child Development , 56 ( 2 ), 438 – 447 .

Birch L. , Fisher J. , Davison K. ( 2003 ). Learning to overeat: maternal use of restrictive feeding practices promotes girls' eating in the absence of hunger . The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 78 ( 2 ), 215 – 220 .

Birch L. , Fisher J. , Grimm-Thomas K. , Markey C. , Sawyer R. , Johnson S. ( 2001 ). Confirmatory factor analysis of the child feeding questionnaire: a measure of parental attitudes, beliefs and practices about child feeding and obesity proneness . Appetite , 36 ( 3 ), 201 – 210 .

Boutelle K. , Eisenberg M. , Gregory M. , Neumark-Sztainer D. ( 2009 ). The reciprocal relationship between parent-child connectedness and adolescent emotional functioning over 5 years . Journal of Psychosomatic Research , 66 ( 4 ), 309 – 316 .

Boutelle K. N. , Rhee K. E. , Liang J. , Braden A. , Douglas J. , Strong D. , Rock C. L. , Wilfley D. E. , Epstein L. H. , Crow S. J. ( 2017 ). Effect of attendance of the child on body weight, energy intake, and physical activity in childhood obesity treatment: a randomized clinical trial . JAMA Pediatrics , 171 ( 7 ), 622 – 628 .

Brown C. , Perrin E. ( 2020 ). Defining picky eating and its relationship to feeding behaviors and weight status . Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 43 ( 4 ), 587 – 595 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-0081-w

Camci N. , Bas M. , Buyukkaragoz A. ( 2014 ). The psychometric properties of the child feeding questionnaire (CFQ) in Turkey . Appetite , 78 , 49 – 54 .

Coppock J. , Ridolfi D. , Hayes J. , St Paul M. , Wilfley D. ( 2014 ). Current approaches to the management of pediatric overweight and obesity . Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine , 16 ( 11 ), 343 .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( 2010 ). Clinical growth charts. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm

Cole T. , Faith M. , Pietrobelli A. , Heo M. ( 2005 ). What is the best measure of adiposity change in growing children: BMI, BMI%, BMI z-score or BMI percentile? European Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 59 ( 3 ), 419 – 425 .

Daniels S. ( 2009 ). Complications of obesity in children and adolescents . International Journal of Obesity , 33 ( S1 ), S60 – S65 .

Darling N. , Cumsille P. , Martnez M. L. ( 2008 ). Individual differences in adolescents' beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority and their own obligation to obey: a longitudinal investigation . Child Development , 79 ( 4 ), 1103 – 1118 .

Ek A. , Lewis Chamberlain K. , Sorjonen K. , Hammar U. , Etminan Malek M. , Sandvik P. , Somaraki M. , Nyman J. , Lindberg L. , Nordin K. , Ejderhamn J. , Fisher P. A. , Chamberlain P. , Marcus C. , Nowicka P. ( 2019 ). A parent treatment program for preschoolers with obesity: a randomized controlled trial . Pediatrics , 144 ( 2 ), e20183457 .

Ek A. , Sorjonen K. , Eli K. , Lindberg L. , Nyman J. , Marcus C. , Nowicka P. ( 2016 ). Associations between parental concerns about preschoolers’ weight and eating and parental feeding practices: results from analyses of the child eating behavior questionnaire, the child feeding questionnaire, and the lifestyle behaviors checklist . PLoS One , 11 ( 1 ), e0147257 .

Faith M. , Scanlon K. , Birch L. , Francis L. , Sherry B. ( 2004 ). Parent-child feeding strategies and their relationships to child eating and weight status . Obesity Research , 12 ( 11 ), 1711 – 1722 .

Farrow C. , Haycraft E. , Blissett J. ( 2015 ). Teaching our children when to eat: how parental feeding practices inform the development of emotional eating: a longitudinal experimental design . The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 101 ( 5 ), 908 – 913 .

Finkenauer C. , Engels Rutger C. M. E. , Meeus W. ( 2002 ). Keeping secrets from parents: advantages and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 31 ( 2 ), 123 – 136 .

Francis L. A. , Hofer S. M. , Birch L. L. ( 2001 ). Predictors of maternal child-feeling style: maternal and child characteristics . Appetite , 37 ( 3 ), 231 – 243 .

Forehand R. , Miller K. S. , Dutra R. , Chance M. W. ( 1997 ). Role of parenting in adolescent deviant behavior: replication across and within two ethnic groups . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 65 ( 6 ), 1036 – 1041 .

Giallo R. , Gavidia-Payne S. ( 2006 ). Child, parent and family factors as predictors of adjustment for siblings of children with a disability . Journal of Intellectual Disability Research , 50 ( 12 ), 937 – 948 .

Gidding S. S. , Dennison B. A. , Birch L. L. , Daniels S. R. , Gillman M. W. , Gilman M. W. , Lichtenstein A. H. , Rattay K. T. , Steinberger J. , Stettler N. , Van Horn L. , & American Heart Association ( 2006 ). Dietary recommendations for children and adolescents: a guide for practitioners . Pediatrics , 117 ( 2 ), 544 – 559 .

Goossens L. , Braet C. , Van Durme K. , Decaluwe V. , Bosmans G. ( 2012 ). The parent-child relationship as predictor of eating pathology and weight gain in preadolescents . Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 41 ( 4 ), 445 – 457 .

Gregory J. E. , Paxton S. J. , Brozovic A. M. ( 2010 ). Maternal feeding practices, child eating behaviors and body mass index in preschool-aged children: a prospective analysis . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 7 ( 1 ), 55 .

Hauser Kunz J. , Grych J. H. ( 2013 ). Parental psychological control and autonomy granting: distinctions and associations with child and family functioning . Parenting , 13 ( 2 ), 77 – 94 .

Hayes A. F. ( 2013 ). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach . The Guilford Press .

Google Preview

Henry B. , Ziegler J. , Parrott J. , Handu D. ( 2018 ). Pediatric weight management evidence-based practice guidelines: components and contexts of interventions . Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , 118 ( 7 ), 1301 – 1311 .

Holmbeck, G. N. (2016). Transformations during the transition to adolescence: parent–adolescent conflict and adaptation. In Graber, J. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Petersen, A. C. (Eds.) Transitions through adolescence: interpersonal domains and context (pp. 167-199). Routledge.

Ingelsson E. , Sullivan L. M. , Fox C. S. , Murabito J. M. , Benjamin E. J. , Polak J. F. , Meigs J. B. , Keyes M. J. , O’Donnell C. J. , Wang T. J. , D’Agostino R. B. , Wolf P. A. , Vasan R. S. ( 2007 ). Burden and prognostic importance of subclinical cardiovascular disease in overweight and obese individuals . Circulation , 116 ( 4 ), 375 – 384 .

Keijsers L. , Branje S. , Frijns T. , Finkenauer C. , Meeus W. ( 2010 ). Gender differences in keeping secrets from parents in adolescence . Developmental Psychology , 46 ( 1 ), 293 – 298 .

Keijsers L. , Poulin F. ( 2013 ). Developmental changes in parent-child communication throughout adolescence . Developmental Psychology , 49 ( 12 ), 2301 – 2308 .

Koplan J. , Liverman C. , Kraak V. ( 2004 ). Preventing childhood obesity: health in the balance . National Academies Press .

Lanigan J. ( 2012 ). The relationship between practices and child-care providers’ beliefs related to child feeding and obesity prevention . Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , 44 ( 6 ), 521 – 529 .

Larson R. W. , Richards M. H. , Moneta G. , Holmbeck G. , Duckett E. ( 1996 ). Changes in adolescents' daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: disengagement and transformation . Developmental Psychology , 32 ( 4 ), 744 – 754 .

Miller J. W. , Stromeyer W. R. , Schwieterman M. A. ( 2013 ). Extensions of the Johnson-Neyman technique to linear models with curvilinear effects: derivations and analytical tools . Multivariate Behavioral Research , 48 ( 2 ), 267 – 300 .

Miller W. , Hering M. , Cothran C. , Croteau K. , Dunlap R. ( 2012 ). After-school physical activity and eating behaviors of middle school students in relation to adult supervision . Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , 44 ( 4 ), 326 – 334 .

Mei Z. , Grummer-Strawn L. , Pietrobelli A. , Goulding A. , Goran M. , Dietz W. ( 2002 ). Validity of body mass index compared with other body-composition screening indexes for the assessment of body fatness in children and adolescents . The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 75 ( 6 ), 978 – 985 .

Ogden C. L. , Carroll M. D. , Lawman H. G. , Fryar C. D. , Kruszon-Moran D. , Kit B. K. , Flegal K. M. ( 2016 ). Trends in obesity prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994 through 2013-2014 . JAMA , 315 ( 21 ), 2292 – 2299 .

Ogden J. , Cordey P. , Cutler L. , Thomas H. ( 2013 ). Parental restriction and children’s diets. The chocolate coin and Easter egg experiments . Appetite , 61 , 36 – 44 .

Parletta N. , Peters J. , Owen A. , Tsiros M. , Brennan L. ( 2012 ). Parenting styles, communication and child/adolescent diets and weight status: let’s talk about it . Early Child Development and Care , 182 ( 8 ), 1089 – 1103 .

Payne L. , Galloway A. , Webb R. ( 2011 ). Parental use of differential restrictive feeding practices with siblings . Pediatric Obesity , 6 ( 2 ), 540 – 546 .

Pinquart M. ( 2014 ). Associations of general parenting and parent-child relationship with pediatric obesity: a meta-analysis . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 39 ( 4 ), 381 – 393 .

Rodgers R. , Paxton S. , Massey R. , Campbell K. , Wertheim E. , Skouteris H. , Gibbons K. ( 2013 ). Maternal feeding practices predict weight gain and obesogenic eating behaviors in young children: a prospective study . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 10 ( 1 ), 24 – 10 .

Spector P. E. ( 1992 ). Summated rating scale construction . Sage .

Steele R. G. , Jensen C. D. , Gayes L. A. , Leibold H. C. ( 2014 ). Medium is the message: moderate parental control of feeding correlates with improved weight outcome in a pediatric obesity intervention . Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 39 ( 7 ), 708 – 717 .

Steinberg L. , Morris A. S. ( 2001 ). Adolescent development . Annual Review of Psychology , 52 ( 1 ), 83 – 110 .

Ventura A. , Birch L. ( 2008 ). Does parenting affect children’s eating and weight status? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 5 ( 1 ), 15 .

Xia, Y. R., Xie, X., Zhou, Z., Defrain, J., Defrain, J., & Combs, R. (2004). Chinese adolescents' decision-making, parent-adolescent communication and relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 36(1-2), 119-145.

Zhang L. , McIntosh W. ( 2011 ). Children’s weight status and maternal and paternal feeding practices . Journal of Child Health Care , 15 ( 4 ), 389 – 400 .

• body mass index procedure
• feeding behaviors
• science of nutrition
• weight maintenance regimens
• middle childhood
• developmental stages

Email alerts

More on this topic, related articles in pubmed, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1465-735X
• Print ISSN 0146-8693
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Pediatric Psychology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Individual & Family
• Employer Plans
• Medicare Advantage
• Federal Employee Health Benefits
• Dual Special Needs Plans (D-SNP)
• Where to Get Care
• Find a Doctor
• Facility Search
• Pharmacy Coverage
• Pharmacy Resources
• Member Support
• Plan Documents
• Premium Payments
• Find a Form
• Preventive Care
• Care Management
• Wellness Resources
• Wellness Webinar
• Women's Health
• Wellness Rewards
• Employer Healthy Living ®
• Wellness Newsletters
• Valued Partners
• In the Community
• Work With Us
• For Providers
• Board of Trustees

  Accepting New Patients

  Accepts Medicaid

  Cultural Competency Training Completed

• Locations Patient Reviews Quality Ratings

Professional Summary

Patient reviews, quality ratings, important links.

• Member Rights & Responsibilities
• Non-Discrimination
• Notice of Privacy Practices
• Terms & Conditions
• Request 1095-B
• Advance Directives
• Interoperability & Data Security
• InterQual® Criteria

Other Links

• Agents & Brokers
• Machine Readable Data
• Pharmacy Support
• Submit Feedback

Weekdays - 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturdays - 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Sundays - Closed

© Copyright 2024. Select Health. All rights reserved.

• कृपया ध्यान दिनुहोस्

Make a Premium Payment

Individuals and Families

Make your first payment or a "quick payment."

Register for an account, log in, and set up future payments using auto pay.

Make an employer payment.

Prefer to speak to us directly?  Call 844-442-4106 .

• 1 blue ribbon < 25th percentile
• 2 blue ribbons ≥ 25th percentile and < 50th percentile
• 3 blue ribbons ≥ 50th percentile and < 75th percentile
• 4 blue ribbons ≥ 75th percentile and < 90th percentile
• 5 blue ribbons ≥ 90th percentile

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

REQUEST A CUSTOMISED TRIP

Looking for something unique? Create the trip of your dreams with the help of our experts.